Lords Sitting of 8 March 1906

Preamble
Several Lords took the Oath.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with: West Yorkshire Tramways.
And also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with: Buenos Ayres Grand National Tramways [H.L.]; Great Northern (Ireland) and Midland Railways [H.L.]; Portsmouth Water [H.L.]; Kent Electric Power [H.L.]; Truro Gas [H.L.]; Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power [H.L.]; Cambrian Railways [H.L.]; Barry Railway [H.L.].
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Antofagasta (Chili) and Bolivia Railway Bill [H.L.]; Read 2a, and committed.
Bridgewater Canals Bill [H.L.]; Read 2a, and committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Crystal Palace Company Bill [H.L.]; Read 2a, and committed.
Essex and Suffolk Equitable Insurance Society Bill [H.L.]; Great Central and Lancashire, Derbyshire, and East Coast Railways Bill [H.L.]; Great Northern Railway (Ireland) Bill [H.L.]; Holyhead Water Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a, and committed; the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection:
H. R. Baines & Company Bill [H.L.]; Hull and Barnsley and Great Central Railway Companies Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a, and committed.
Hull and Barnsley Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a, and
570
committed; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Hull Joint Dock Bill [H.L.]; Kidderminster Gas Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a, and committed.
London and North Western Railway Bill [H.L.]; Manchester and Milford Railway Bill [H.L.]; Maryport Harbour Bill [H.L.]; Mersey Railway Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a, and committed; the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Milford Docks Bill [H.L.]; Mirfield Gas Bill [H.L.]; National Assurance Company of Ireland and Yorkshire Fire and Life Insurance Company Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a, and committed.
Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Sheffield Assay Office Bill [H.L.]; Sheffield District Railway Bill [H.L.]; South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dover Railways Bill [H.L.]; South Lancashire Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]; Trent Navigation Company Bill [H.L.]; Wirral Railway (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]; Preston, Chorley and Horwich Tramways Bill [H.L.] Read 2a, and committed; the Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Great Central and Lancashire, Derbyshire, and East Coast Railways Bill [H.L.]; Sheffield District Railway Bill [H.L.]; Manchester and Milford Railway Bill [H.L.]; Sheffield Assay Office Bill [H.L.]; Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Essex and Suffolk Equitable Insurance Society Bill [H.L.]; Bridgewater Canals Bill [H.L.]; Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.), D. Bedford (chairman), E. Stamford, E. Hardwicke, L. Napier of Magdala, L. Sanderson; agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at Eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3533. Turkey (Trade of Constantinople and District).
  No. 3534. France (Trade of Marseilles).

  AUSTRALIA.
  Address from the House of Representatives and Resolution of the Senate on the subject of Home Rule for Ireland, and the replies thereto.
  ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND.
  Annual Report for the year 1905.

  BULGARIA (NEW CUSTOMS TARIFF) (INTERIM STATEMENT).
  Translation of the New Customs Tariff of Bulgaria as modified by Commercial Conventions with the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Italy.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  WINTER ASSIZES ACT, 1876, AND SPRING ASSIZES ACT, 1879.
  Two Orders in Council, dated 27th February, 1906, constituting Spring Assize Counties Nos. 2 and 3 for the ensuing Spring Assizes.

  SHOP HOURS ACT, 1904.
  Order made by the council of the county borough of Gateshead, and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, fixing the hours of closing for certain shops within the borough.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

NEW BILLS.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING (ALIENS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. Was presented by the Lord Muskerry; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 24.)

  POISONS AND PHARMACY BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to regulate the sale of certain poisonous substances and to amend the
  572
  Pharmacy Acts. Was presented by the-Lord President (E. Crewe); read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 25.)

  JUDICATURE BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Judicature Acts, 1873 to 1894, with respect to the persons in whom the power of making rules of court under those Acts is vested. Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 26.)
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACTS (EXTENSION) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to extend the Public Libraries Acts to counties. Was presented by the Lord James of Hereford; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 27.)
  PUBLIC HEALTH ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
  LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I think it due to your Lordships that I should offer an explanation with regard to the Bill for the Amendment of the Public Health Acts, the Second Reading of which stood in my name for to-day. The Local Government Board are anxious to examine the measure, and, therefore, I have deferred asking the House to read the Bill a second time until this day fortnight.
  MARINE INSURANCE BILL [H.L.]
  Bill read 3a (according to order) and passed; and sent to the Commons.

  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, that the Bill be now read 3a—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
  LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: Before the Motion is put I should like to say a few words. There were, I understood, Clauses in this Bill which were under the consideration of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, and he certainly intimated that he would undertake the revision of some of those

  573
  clauses. In my opinion, the presence of the word "corruptly" will place great difficulties in the way of enforcing the Act; and I also think that the clause which makes the permission of the Attorney-General necessary before anyone can prosecute under this Act is a very objectionable clause. My noble and learned friend in charge of the Bill is aware that the House of Commons has already opposed the Bill on the ground of the existence of that clause; and, as far as my information goes, there is every possibility, if this blot, as I think it is, on the Bill remains, that it will be again thrown out by the House of Commons. I abstained from raising the point in Committee, for I have every faith that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will carry out his promise and see what Amendments can be made in the Bill. Whether these Amendments will be made in the House of Commons or not I do not know; but I hope it will not be supposed that silence on our part gave acquiescence to these objectionable provisions.
  LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I should like to say one word in support of what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down. The bankers are anxious that the fiat of the Attorney-General should not be necessary. There will certainly be an immense number of very small cases under the Act in which it is surely unnecessary to call in such expensive machinery, and we are very much afraid that the Act will not do all the good which the noble and learned Lord in charge of it wishes if this provision is insisted upon. We are very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for introducing the Bill again, but we very much hope that the suggestion which has fallen from Lord James of Hereford will be acted upon.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, I have frequently explained to this House that my fear is that without the provision with regard to the fiat of the Attorney-General this Bill might be made a vehicle of one of the worst forms of crime that now prevails, and prevails very extensively in this country—I refer
  574
  to what is commonly known as blackmail; and for that reason I did not think it right to yield to the suggestion of my noble and learned friend Lord James, when he made it last year. I am still of the same opinion. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has been good enough to say that he will aid and assist the Bill as much as he can, subject to his right to make corrections. I can only say that any corrections he makes I shall be very glad to accept when this Bill comes back to this House, if it does come back; but I wish to say very distinctly that my own opinion is unchanged. I do not think the members of your Lordships House, and, indeed, the public generally, are at all aware of the extent to which that most odious form of crime—namely, blackmail—exists, and it seems to me that the new offence which you are here creating is one which will particularly lend itself to this crime unless there is some safeguard.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord LOREBURN): My Lords, I am very sorry if there has been any misunderstanding with regard to the Amendments which I intimated I intended to move. Those Amendments will be entirely free from any hostility to the Bill. I did not think it worth while making them here, as the process of the Bill would have been thereby delayed. Upon the point of the fiat of the Attorney-General being necessary, I am afraid there has been a misunderstanding. In the House of Commons I objected to the Attorney-General's fiat being required, because I thought it was an ineffective bar against the hideous crime of blackmail to which my noble friend has referred. My objection to the Attorney-General's fiat being required was that, having held that office, I knew how slight was the opportunity of the Attorney-General to inquire himself into these matters. If any more effective means could be found of preventing blackmail, which I think is a serious danger, no one would more heartily welcome it than myself.
  On question, Motion agreed to.
  Privileged Amendment agreed to, and Bill passed; and sent to the Commons.

  WESTMINSTER BRIDGE AND THE EMBANKMENT—RETURN.
  THE DUKE OF RUTLAND: My Lords, I beg leave, in accordance with the notice standing in my name on the Paper, to move for a Return showing the dates of the construction of Westminster Bridge and the Thames Embankment, the sources out of which the funds were supplied, and the public bodies to whom the execution of the work was confided.
  Moved, "For a Return showing the dates of the construction of Westminster Bridge and the Thames Embankment, the sources out of which the funds were supplied, and the public bodies to whom the execution of the works was confided."—(The Duke of Rutland).
  THE EARL OF LIVERPOOL (Lord STEWARD): My Lords, I am happy to tell my noble friend that both the Office of Works and the Treasury are prepared to grant the Return for which he moves. I believe the noble Duke has seen the Papers, but perhaps he would wish me to answer the Questions briefly for the information of the House. Firstly, with regard to Westminster Bridge, the former bridge, which I remember well, and which was in point of date the second bridge built over the Thames in the Metropolis, was built by Commissioners appointed by 9 Geo. II., c. 29, between the years 1738 and 1750. from the designs of Labelye, at a cost of £218,800, and £170,690 more was spent on the approaches to the bridge, including Great George Street. That bridge lasted rather more than 100 years. In 1846 the piers became unsafe, and the bridge was only used for a short time after that.
  It is curious that it should have fallen to me to have the honour of answering this Question, for I can speak from personal recollection on these matters, having, during the earlier part of my life, lived while in London in one of the last of the old riverside houses, which no doubt the noble Duke, and many of your Lordships will recollect—Fife House. It stood on the bank of the river between Hungerford Bridge and Westminster Bridge, close to Whitehall Stairs, and on part of the site of the old Whitehall Palace, with a garden and terrace adjoin-
  576
  ing the river, and with an entrance in Middle Scotland Yard, and a garden entrance in Whitehall Yard, and the supply of coal was taken in direct from barges, so that I saw the old bridge every day of my life when in London. It had fifteen arches, and was used for traffic for some years after 1846. I well remember crossing it myself in 1854, when driving down to see the launch of H.M.S. "Royal Albert," at Woolwich Dockyard, by Her Majesty the late Queen, and it was used for some years after that. The alcoves with seats and shelters which were in the parapet of the old bridge are now in Victoria Park. I hope your Lordships will forgive this digression.
  To proceed, the new Westminster Bridge was built in the following way. An Act was passed in 1853 which dissolved the body who were called the Commissioners of old Westminster Bridge. Their property was vested in the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works, with power to sell the property and to apply the proceeds to meeting the cost of constructing the new bridge and approaches. The new bridge was thereupon begun, and it was opened on May 24th, 1862. The total cost of the new bridge and its approaches was £553,000. This was met by the sale of a portion of the estate which had been in the hands of the Commissioners of the old bridge, which produced £146,000. There were further Votes by Parliament of £407,000. The remaining portion of the estate was retained by the Government, and that included the site upon which the Home and Foreign Offices were built, valued at £235,000.
  I now pass to the Thames Embankment. The Thames Embankment was constructed by the Metropolitan Board of Works under the Thames Embankment (North) Act, 1862. That, too, is a date which I could have given from my own personal knowledge, for, in consequence of the long lease of Fife House having then only some six years to run, and a renewal not being granted by the Government, who then thought of building the India Office on that site, we moved in the end of that year to the house in which I now live. That Act empowered the Board to construct an Embankment on the north side of the

  577
  river between Westminster Bridge and Blackfriars Bridge, with approaches from the Strand and Whitehall, and to borrow money on the security of the coal and wine duties to pay for the works. At that time the great works of main drainage and the Embankment were regarded as of almost national importance. For that reason, under the Thames Embankment (Loans) Act, 1864, provision was made for a Treasury guarantee to enable the Board to borrow on better terms, and in connection with that guarantee the Treasury was given the management of the improvement fund. The Victoria Embankment was opened on July 13th, 1870, the Albert Embankment having been previously completed and opened on November 24th, 1869.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  SMALL HOLDINGS.
  The EARL of HARROWBYrose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they would have a Return laid upon the Table of the House giving the amount of Crown Lands which in the opinion of the Commissioners might be suitable for subdivision into small holdings.
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think it was Lord Rosebery who, last year, speaking in the south of England, referred to the question of Crown lands, and offered the suggestion that the Government should make experiments on those lands with a view to developing them into small holdings. I was sorry to see that the suggestion was not followed up by discussions in the Press, and in consequence of that I have ventured to put this Question on the Paper. I hope the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries will be able to see his way to grant this Return, because I feel that it would be most interesting and useful to know the total acreage of agricultural land and the locality, and also out of the total acreage what acreage would be suitable for small holdings. I would go further. I have not put it down, but I would make a suggestion that in that Return, if granted, the acreage of the farms should be given, because I eel very strongly that in these days all
  578
  large farms should be split up. I have been very busy during the last three or four years in doing this, and now in my office I have filed schemes for dealing with every large farm on my estates. It is somewhat difficult to speak on this question of Crown lands because I have no data to go upon; but if the suggestion were adopted I feel strongly that it would go a long way to solve the very difficult problem of the migration from country villages to our towns, and, if extended on a large scale, I feel that we might possibly have migration from the towns to the country.
  The noble Earl may remember that I gave evidence at some considerable length before the Royal Commission on Small Holdings, and I endeavoured to point out that these small holdings could be created at no loss to the landowner. On my estate, consisting of 13,000 acres, I have to-day no less than 2,000 acres of small holdings, and I would suggest that if this experiment on Crown lands should prove successful it might be extended in two directions. His Majesty's Government might very well approach the large Universities, who, I believe, own a very large number of acres, and I know from personal knowledge that a good many of their farms would lend themselves to being split up into smaller farms and into small holdings. One cannot but remember that the Universities are absentee landowners in the same way as the Crown Lands Commissioners, and it would be no hardship to them, more especially if I am right in saying that they could develop their property at no financial loss to themselves.
  Then I would suggest the use of glebe lands. I am negotiating to-day for the purchase of three or four lots of glebe lands to convert into small holdings. There, again, I contend that these lands lend themselves very readily to the creation of small holdings. I would venture, if I might, to congratulate the Government and the noble Earl (Lord Carrington) on having shown such keen interest in this very important question. I myself should like to see all land which is suitable developed in this direction; and I am sure I can say, on behalf of noble Lords sitting on these Benches,

  579
  that if the Government were to bring in a Bill in this direction, they would have the support of a large number of noble Lords on this side of the House. There are some objections, perhaps, but the objections I have met with are principally want of knowledge on the part of the landowners, and, also, they are frightened at the question of expense. I might perhaps, be allowed to make the suggestion—I do not know whether it is feasible or not—that the Board of Agriculture could very well employ two or three experts whom owners of land could go to and consult, if they were desirous of developing their properties in this direction.
  As regards the cost of these small holdings, may I, if I am not trespassing too much on the kindness of the House, give just one case to prove that these holdings can be created at no loss to the owner. I will take the case of thirty acres of grass land. I find, from my own personal experience, that it is possible to get £1 an acre more rent from this grass land than you would get from a large farmer farming perhaps, three or four hundred acres, which gives one a rental profit of £30. Then you would have to pay £500 for a cottage and homestead—£300 for the cottage and £200 for the homestead. That, at 5 per cent., which is the rate the Lands Improvement Company charge for interest and redemption, amounts to £25. If you deduct £25 from the £30 profit, it gives you a net profit rental of £5 a year. This I have done to a very large extent lately, so that I can speak from personal knowledge.
  I would like to make one further suggestion. His Majesty's Government have in the past treated Irishmen very liberally. I do think the time has now come when the present Government might do something, not for the landowners, but for English agriculturists in this way. They might, to my mind, advance money at local loan rate of interest, which, with the redemption, would not be 5 per cent., but might be brought down to 4 per cent. That would make the whole difference. It would, I am sure, be an inducement to landowners still further to develop their property in this way. The noble Earl
  580
  the Chairman of Committees of your Lordships' House is Chairman of a Committee on Small Holdings which is sitting at the present moment, and I hope his Committee will make some definite recommendations which the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries may possibly embody in the Bill which I am told he proposes bringing in next session.
  LORD HILTON: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, I should like to ask the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he could see his way to grant a similar Return in regard to the very large landed estates of Greenwich Hospital in the north of England and elsewhere. Perhaps I ought to apologise for not having placed this Question on the Paper, but a Return was presented by the noble Lord with the Navy Estimates the other day on the subject of the landed property and the revenues of Greenwich Hospital. It appeared from that Paper, as many of your Lordships are aware, that Greenwich Hospital is a very large landowner in the north of England. It is not only a very large landowner, but it stands in a position which many other landowners would like to occupy—it is the possessor of very large funds, which it seems to lend in a very judicious way at high rates of interest to public bodies, corporations, and so on. Now, if those funds are derived from the sale of portions of its landed estates, or of its mineral royalties, and so on, I think it might fairly be contended that those funds, instead of being disposed of in the way I have alluded to, should be utilised, as my noble friend has suggested, in making experiments with regard to small holdings.
  I think nobody in this House will deny that it is one of the greatest misfortunes to the landed system of this country that so many thousands of acres are held in mortmain. I do not attack the administration of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, Greenwich Hospital, the Charity Commissioners, the Universities, or other bodies such as I speak of; but it is an undoubted evil for all persons living on their estates and in the neighbourhood that

  581
  there are these great absentee landlords in perpetuity, who are absolutely unable, despite the best intentions on the part of the administrators, to take any human interest or show any human sympathy in the concerns of the neighbourhood. Hundreds of thousands of pounds are taken out of the districts in which the estates are situated and diverted to other purposes: excellent purposes, no doubt, but they do not in any way tend to solve the great agricultural problem my noble friend has alluded to. The estates of the Duchy of Cornwall and of the Duchy of Lancaster are, I believe, beyond the control of Parliament, but the others to which I have referred will, I hope, come within the ken of the Committee of which the noble Earl at the Table is Chairman, and I trust that something will be done in the direction my noble friend wishes. I hope the First Lord of the Admiralty will be able to grant a Return in regard to the lands under his direction.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord TWEEDMOUTH): My Lords, the question that has been raised by the noble Earl is one about which I do not think there can be any difference of opinion in this House, either on private or public grounds. I think I can say, on behalf of all your Lordships, that we should be only too glad to increase the number of small tenants on our holdings; and I am sure we are also agreed that it is greatly to the public interest that that should be done. To-day I am speaking only as the mouthpiece of my noble friend Lord Ripon; but I have put myself in communication with the Commissioners of Wood and Forests, and I think I can correctly state the attitude that they are likely to take in this matter.
  I do not need to remind you of the difficulties of breaking up large farms and turning them into small holdings. You must remember that you have certain duties to the tenants of the large farms. You cannot arbitrarily turn a man out of a big farm which he has farmed well, where he has spent his life, and on which he has expended a great deal of capital, simply in order that it may be cut up for the benefit of small holders. You have also to consider the large expenditure
  582
  that has been made on these large holdings in the way of buildings and so forth, which are quite useless for the small holder when he comes in. It will therefore be seen that it is not altogether a simple problem. I would say, both on behalf of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests and of the authorities at Greenwich hospital, that they do not think in either case it would be possible to give such a Return as is asked for by the noble Earl.
  The noble Earl asks His Majesty's Government whether they will have a Return laid on the Table of the House giving the amount of grass land which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, might be suitable for sub-division into small holdings. Doubtless, a great deal of the land is suitable for division into small holdings, but you must consider the circumstances under which that land is held at present before deciding whether it is possible to use it for small holdings. In the view of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests—and I must say I agree with them in that view—it is a local question affecting the particular holding which is at the moment under consideration. I can assure your Lordships, on behalf of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests and the authorities of Greenwich Hospital, that they are only too ready, whenever a holding becomes vacant, to consider the question of breaking it up and making it a subject for the experiment of small holdings. They do feel, however, that they must also pay attention to the existing tenants of the property.
  I was for a year and a-half Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and was brought into contact with the management of lands belonging to the Duchy, and I do not agree with the noble Lord that these proprietors care nothing for their tenants or for the interests of the people on their properties. I think just a word of caveat ought to be put in with regard to that charge. I must also say that, though the Commissioners of Woods and Forests are not able to give the Return in the form in which it is asked for by the noble Earl, they will be very ready to give information showing the exact number of small holdings

  583
  held under the Crown in their Department. They will also gladly give information with regard to farms which become vacant, and which, therefore, are in a position to be considered as to whether they should be re-let en bloc or sub-divided into small holdings. I do not think I need detain your Lordships further. The subject is one which is particularly well understood by my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and if any further information is desired he will be able to give it.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of ONSLOW): My Lords, I quite understand the difficulties which the noble Lord sees in the way of granting the Return asked for by my noble friend. The noble Earl asks for a Return giving the amount of Crown lands which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, might be suitable for sub-division into small holdings. I have the greatest possible respect for the two gentlemen who have so ably, and for so many years, conducted the business of the Office of Woods and Forests, but I venture to think that there is a great deal of difference of opinion amongst those who are qualified to speak on the subject of what land is or is not available for this purpose; and I very much doubt whether, even if the noble Lord were prepared to give this Return, we should be entirely satisfied with the results.
  I was glad to hear my noble friend say that His Majesty's Government were prepared to lay before Parliament information with respect to changes in the tenancy of farms which might be suitable for breaking up into small holdings. There was some pressure put on the Department to convert into small holdings a very suitable farm in Lincolnshire, and the opinion of the Department was that it was not expedient to do so. I am not aware for what reason I have the honour, as my noble friend behind me has told you, of being Chairman of the Committee which has been appointed to inquire into this subject. As I never prophecy unless I know, I will not express any opinion as to what may be the Report of that Committee; but this I can say, that the success which may attend small
  584
  holdings does not arise from any one particular condition, or even from a combination of conditions. You may have very good land and turn it into small holdings, and yet it may be a complete failure if the people are not used to cultivating land in small holdings, and if there is no demand for such holdings. You must have the demand before you can provide the supply.
  I would say at once that there are conditions which are certain to make small holdings a failure. If you have stiff land in a cold climate, far from the market, cultivated by men with no other occupation, the experiment is certain to be a failure; but the converse of that does, not necessarily make for success. You may have only one antithesis of those conditions, and that one condition may make your small holding a success. I will give an instance. We have heard a great deal on the platform and elsewhere of the small holdings of my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture. I rather think the burden of my noble friend's song to his brother landowners has been, "Go thou and do likewise;" but it does not always follow that the conditions of other people's land are precisely identical.
  Now what are the conditions of my noble friend's small holdings? We were fortunate on my Committee to have before us the representative of the Co-operative Small Holdings Society, of which my noble friend is, or was until he assumed office at the Board of Agriculture, the President, and we were informed that the farms which have been turned into small holdings were at a considerable distance from the nearest town—that of Spalding-One was three miles away, and the other five miles. You would think that they would be provided with the most modern equipment, yet on one of the farms there were only the old farm buildings divided among three people, and on the other farm, five miles from Spalding, there was a farmhouse, two labourers' cottages, and the shepherd's house. The other people who occupied these holdings had to walk five miles to cultivate them. You will wonder how they could be a success, but they are a success, because they happen to be in a part of the country

  585
  which for generations has been inhabited by men who thoroughly understand small holdings. As long ago as 1880, 20,000 out of 26,000 of the holdings in that part of the country were small holdings. The soil is so rich that as much as £40 has been obtained off a single acre from potatoes and celery grown upon it. Notwithstanding the distance these small holdings are from the homes of the workers, and notwithstanding the many drawbacks to them, the fact that there is this extraordinarily good quality of soil makes the small holdings a success. There are other reasons which go to make the success of small holdings. There may be excellent markets adjoining; there may be large areas of common land on which the occupier of the small holding may be able to turn out his cattle; and he may have other occupations to fill up his time.
  I think it would be impossible for anyone to do what the noble Earl asks the Office of Woods and Forests to do—namely, to say, of any particular area of ground what amount is or is not suitable for small holdings. There is plenty of land available in this country for all the small holdings required. I believe there is not the slightest disinclination on the part of the landowners to turn their land into small holdings if they can do so economically and on sound business conditions; and when you consider that there are already not less than 4,500,000 of acres in England, Ireland and Scotland in small holdings of from five to fifty acres, and that 10 per cent. of those are owned by the occupants, you will admit that there is no indisposition in this country to utilise land in small holdings. All that is necessary is that landowners should be convinced that it is an experiment which is likely to be successful, and that they should be furnished, as my noble friend asks, with the necessary facilities for equipping the land as small holdings. I confess that after what we have heard from noble Lords opposite, and especially from my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, in favour of small holdings, I shall be very much astonished if I do not find a readiness on the part of His Majesty's Government to utilise in this way those estates which
  586
  they themselves control, and with which they can do as they like, and thereby set an example to the landowners of England.
  LORD BARNARD: My Lords, as a large landowner I should like to express my entire concurrence with the views of His Majesty's Government as expressed by the noble Lord the First Lord of the Admiralty, and I should like also to endorse very heartily the opinion which has fallen from the Chairman of Committees Lord Onslow. I am convinced that very great caution is necessary in dealing with this question. It would be a very great mistake to lay down as a general proposition that all agricultural land was suited for small holdings. I have a very large number of small holders, though I regret to say their position is at the present time an exceedingly difficult one. In Upper Teesdale, on my estate, there have been for generations a number of holders of from five to fifty acres, and at the present day their position is a very piteous one. In former days, by dint of extreme hard work and great thrift, they managed to eke out a comfortable subsistence, because the bulk of their families were engaged in lead-mining, but the lead-mining industry, unfortunately for myself and for these people, has ceased. The consequence is that it is with difficulty these men can get along at all. In fact, my agent has gone so far as to suggest whether it would not be possible, instead of dividing the land, to let some of the holdings together, to enable some of these people to earn a decent living. I may say that the holdings are a good distance from the railway. It may be asked, Why not start motors? The answer is that the winter in this part is extremely severe, and there are very often two or three feet of snow.
  May I refer to another of my estates? In Shropshire I occasionally have opportunities of buying small bits of land, of changing the size of holdings, or of establishing small holdings. Provided you do not attempt to do it on a wholesale scale, it will be of use in such a locality, because not only do these men live in a state of comparative independence and happiness, but they are able

  587
  to get other employment by supplying labour to the large farmers, and on that account I think it would be useful to encourage small holdings. But I should deplore any attempt to do away with the present race of British farmers by dividing their farms into small holdings. It has been in the past a very great advantage to have a race of farmers farming considerable areas, and I think it would be a national misfortune if the sons of these men, who, judging from my own experience, are only too anxious to obtain farms similar to those occupied by their fathers, were driven out of existence.
  LORD ZOUCHE OF HARYNGWORTH: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, I should like to say one word in sympathy with the question raised by Lord Harrowby. This is an extremely important subject, and I should like to see facilities given also for small ownerships of land. There have been pointed out in the course of this debate one or two difficulties in the way of carrying out this project with facility, but I do not think the point has been raised as to local authorities dealing with this matter. Some years ago there was, I believe, a scheme for local authorities to rent land and then sub-let it to small tenants. That, I am afraid, has not always been a success.
  I happen to know of an instance near where I live in the South of England, where it has not proved successful. It was the case of a small farm belonging to a local charity. The trustees let it in the first instance to the county council, getting, as was natural, as high a rent as possible. The county council then proceeded to divide the holding into three lots, the whole farm being a small one of 20 acres. The consequence was that the rent which the county council charged naturally left a margin over the amount they had to pay to the trustees, so that these holders were saddled, not only with a heavy rent, but with a far higher rent than they would have had to pay had they obtained the land direct from the landlord in the ordinary way. So much so that in this particular instance the rent
  588
  per acre charged was nearly double that paid for land of the same quality quite near these holdings. That, I think, is a point which should certainly be dealt with in considering this great scheme. It seems to me that the less local authorities have to do with it the better, however well intentioned they may be. Of course, there is a way of getting out of the difficulty. The local authorities might sublet at a loss, but that, needless to say, would be very hard, if not a fraud, on the ratepayers.
  Then there is another great drawback to the creation of small holdings, and it is a difficulty common to almost all sub-division or dealings with land. I refer to the enormous, and often exorbitant, fees charged by lawyers, surveyors, and gentlemen of that description. They always say—and may say truly—that it takes just as much trouble to deal with a small piece of land as with a large piece; but that does not help matters very much, and what I think often stops the creation of small holdings, when both the landowner on the one hand and the small farmer on the other would be ready to embark on such a scheme, are the exorbitant costs of carrying out the transaction in the first instance. It appears to me that His Majesty's Government, who I am glad to hear have considerable sympathy with this question, might come to the rescue in one or two ways. It is surely not beyond the wit of the Government to devise some scheme by which these legal expenses and the expenses of conveyance might be very materially lessened. As I am not a lawyer I cannot presume to offer any strong opinion on that, but I am certain that these expenses have proved, and, unless some amendment is made, will prove, a serious drawback to the creation of small holdings. The Government might help in another way, by making loans both for the benefit of the small holders and the owners on the land on which these small holdings are created. But it is no use making loans if you charge exorbitant terms and hedge the loans round with conditions, and with those difficulties which generally come under the name of red tape. I believe in the truth of the old maxim that where there's a will there's a way; and I think if the Government take this question up in earnest, they may see their way to help on both of these points. In particular, I

  589
  think it will be satisfactory to your Lordships to learn that the Government are fully alive to the great interest of this question, and to the serious bearing it has on the future of agriculture in this country.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I hope I may be pardoned for intervening in this debate, but I do so as a landowner who, though having been in absolute possession of my estates for only a few years, had the management of those estates during the lifetime of my late father, who took a great interest, not only in allotments, but also the system of small holdings. I entirely agree with what has fallen from my noble friend Lord Tweed mouth as to the impossibility of turning out a very good tenant. If the tenant has farmed the land very well he is a pearl of unknown value, and you would naturally be very loth to get rid of him.
  But there is one point which has not been mentioned in this debate, and it is that the whole of the land on large farms is not of the same quality. Take a farm of four or five hundred acres. If you cut it into small holdings, what is to become of the bad land incorporated in that farm? The valueless land sinks down and goes out of cultivation, the good land being given to the small holders. Therefore, it is impossible in such a case to expect the land set out in small holdings to be let at the same rate per acre as was the case with the large farm. I know there is land eminently suitable for small holdings. The County Council of Norfolk have purchased a tract of land of this nature in West Norfolk. That land is let, and the occupiers will do extremely well. It is the same with allotments. I let allotments at exactly the same rate per acre as I let the farm to the farmer. In some places they make it answer. I know land not very far from me which is let at twice the price charged to the large farmer, and the holders do well. Why? Simply because they can grow black currants.
  LORD SALTOUN: By whom is the land let?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The Norfolk County Council. But out of those allotments the people make a very
  590
  good thing. The whole point turns on the suitability of the land. There must be very careful investigation, otherwise you will find there will be more land out of cultivation through the creation of small holdings than there is at the present time. If you wish to have small holdings and really believe that they are for the benefit of this country, why not adopt the French system and have division of land at death and at the end of 100 years? The country would then in time be full of small holdings.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEMy Lords, coming from a country where the system of small tenants is very extensive, and where it has not been a success, I desire to say a very few words in this debate. It must be remembered, in the first place, that these tenants as a rule have a very small amount of capital, and, therefore, a bad season, sickness, a large family, or want of thrift affects them much more than tenants of large holdings such as one sees in England and Scotland. What has been the result of this system in Ireland? The result has been that exceptional legislation has been necessary there, and I do not think any one of your Lordships would say it has been a success, as it has had to be constantly remedied during the last twenty-five years. Noble Lords in England ought to think very carefully before they encourage in this country anything which might lead to measures being taken similar to those which have been taken in the sister isle.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (Earl CARRINGTON): My Lords, I should like first of all to congratulate the noble Earl (Lord Harrowby), though I am afraid we are unable to give him quite the Answer he desires, on having initiated a most interesting debate, in which noble Lords who have had practical experience of the subject have taken part. The noble Earl told us of the practical manner in which he had tackled the subject. He had split up his large farms until he had 2,000 acres under small holdings. That is a very comforting thing to hear, and I hope that notice will be taken of it in the Press, as it shows that the idea is not so chimerical as some people believe. The noble Earl has suggested—and a very good suggestion too!—that University

  591
  farms, when they come into the market, should, in proper and suitable places, be divided into small holdings. With that suggestion, and also with the suggestion which the noble Earl made as to glebe lands, I think every member of His Majesty's Government would entirely agree.
  The noble Earl the Chairman of Committees gave us his experience. He said that before small holdings could be created there must be a demand. Naturally, there must be a demand, or it is no use providing the supply. The noble Earl alluded to my own experience. I do not wish to trouble the House with that, beyond saying that everywhere, as far as I am concerned, the small plots of land that I have let out have been a success. They have been a success in North Lincolnshire, in Mid Lincolnshire, on the clays of North Buckinghamshire, in Aylesbury, and in South Buckinghamshire also, and everywhere the rents have been paid. But, of course, they have been the greatest success in the fine fenlands of Lincolnshire, where, perhaps, they have been the greatest object lesson of all. Then Lord Barnard gave us his experience, which was very satisfactory also, and he mentioned that there were applications on the part of small holders to increase their holdings.
  LORD BARNARD: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but I wish to explain that I did not say there were applications from the tenants to increase the holdings. I said it was a question whether I should not, as landlord, have to put them together and make large holdings.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I beg the noble Lord's pardon; I thought the tenants had applied. The noble Lord also said that it was a thousand pities to do away with the British farmer. I am sure every one will agree with him in that. There is no intention of doing away with any class of agriculturists. I submit that there is room for all. There is room for the thousand-acre farmer, the one hundred acre farmer, the fifty-acre farmer, the ten-acre farmer, and the small allotment holder. Lord Zouche entered into the question of lessening the costs in connection with the sale and transfer of land. That is a very great question, and one
  592
  which ought to be seriously considered. I would mention that in Australia one estate of 1,250,000 acres changed hands at a cost in transfer expenses of certainly under £5—I believe it was only £2; and I think that shows that something might be done with advantage in the Mother Country in the direction of reducing these high charges.
  I now come to the question of Crown Lands. The figures in regard to Crown Lands show that in days gone by the Crown Commissioners have not turned their attention very much to the question of small holdings. I am bound to confess that I do not think the Commissioners of Crown Lands are to blame. I must respectfully point out to noble Lords opposite that for the last twenty years, with the exception of two-and a half years, the Party opposite have been in power; and surely something might have been done, and some instructions given to the two distinguished servants who have the duty of looking after these Crown Estates to turn their attention in the direction of small holdings. But, so far as I can understand, during the last twenty years the estates have been managed on very different lines. The custom has been to let the farms to the best tenants possible. That is quite right; but the Commissioners, I believe, with the concurrence and to the entire satisfaction of those who were above them, favoured large farms. They did not initiate small holdings in any way, and, as has been stated, in some instances they refused the applications of syndicates and individuals who approached them with a view of taking Crown property and splitting the land up into small holdings. The syndicate with which I am associated in Lincolnshire applied for a farm for that purpose, but the Crown Commissioners could not see their way to let it to them and it was let to a big farmer. I believe in that instance it was let to a man who had a considerable amount of land in that neighbourhood, and he added field to field and farm to farm. For the last twenty years nothing much has been done in the direction which is now so properly and so urgently desired.
  His Majesty's present Government have been in office only about two months. I am glad to be able to assure noble Lords opposite that in that short time something has been done. A fortnight ago a tenant

  593
  of a farm belonging to the Crown Commissioners died, and the farm, which is in Lincolnshire and consisted of 200 acres, came into the market. It was eminently suitable for the object we have in view. My syndicate and I applied to the Commissioners to have it. We were most courteously received, and, although it has not been absolutely decided, I understand there is no objection to our having it, and I believe it is as good as settled that the Commissioners will let us have the farm to be cut up into small holdings. I have been able to introduce to the Crown Lands Commissioners another syndicate, who are approaching them in respect of 1,000 acres of vacant land. That syndicate is a very solvent one. It is composed of Mr. Rose, the Member for the New market Division of Cambridge, General Booth, and Mr. George Herring, who has given the Salvation Army the magnificent sum of £100,000 to be invested and used for this purpose. I believe the farm is being inspected to-day, and that before very long this money will be invested in Crown property. Cottages will be erected, roads made, fences put up, wells dug, and we shall have on this 1,000 acres of Crown land a very satisfied and flourishing community. I should like to say that this is not in any way a charitable scheme. It is done on a business footing, and we hope that it will be an object lesson to landowners and the public at large, and show that if the system were carried out to a greater extent the exodus from the agricultural districts to the town might be largely stopped.
  Once again I thank the noble Earl opposite for having brought the subject forward. I can assure him that the words that were used by the Prime Minister are not empty words. The Government are fully determined to do what they believe they have a mandate to do—namely, to put the people back, as far as possible, and under good conditions, on the land. In conclusion, let me say that, if I can be of the slightest service to noble Lords who take an interest in this matter, I hope they will call upon me, for no trouble will be too great on my part to further the cause they have at heart.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, the only part of the discussion on
  594
  which I wish to say a few words is that which has reference to the expenses incurred by persons who want to transfer land. The noble Lord who referred to that subject urged that something should be done in that matter. I think something has been done, and if the system had not been obstructed by a class of gentlemen who not unnaturally desire to preserve the monopoly of these things to themselves, a great deal would have been done. It must be remembered that there is now a power, by the application of the Lands Transfer Acts, to make it compulsory if the county councils consent; but, although an effort has been made, to my knowledge more than once in some counties, there is a very active and energetic class of persons who by canvassing county councils have been able to paralyse that attempt.
  I did not understand what was said by one noble Lord as to the high costs involved in dividing farms where the owner has himself divided them. I do not know that the assistance of a lawyer is very much required in that matter. I quite agree that, when you have to deal with the transfer of land and the making out of the title, it is one of the most monstrous things in this world that every time the transfer is made the whole cost of inquiring into the title has to be incurred. How we have permitted that system to continue so long is a complete mystery to me, and I am convinced that, when once the thing is understood, the efforts of those who seek still to preserve this system will be in vain, and owners of land will not permit themselves to have, as a continual drag on the transfer of land, the extraordinary and ridiculous expenses incurred in the investigation of the title.
  LORD SALTOUN: I desire to offer a a very few words to your Lordships on this question. Since I have owned my estates I have recognised that smaller holdings were absolutely required. I have been spending very large sums of money every year in converting large holdings into smaller ones, and I would inform noble Lords that great expense is involved thereby. You have to change the whole shift of the field, and also to do away with the large buildings which were of service to one farm, and make two or three additional houses. The great difficulty in

  595
  altering holdings is the cost of building smaller houses and so forth. The noble Earl opposite referred to land bought by the County Council of Norfolk and let in small holdings. There is no doubt that where the county council steps in the price goes up and the cost is very much greater. The noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture referred to the fact that his syndicate had purchased some land. I would like to ask him if it is proposed to erect buildings on that land.
  EARL CARRINGTON: I do not think it is necessary to put up buildings. We find that the farm houses can be occupied by two families having about fifty or sixty acres of land apiece. The rest is farmed in small holdings; the people having the big patches do the cultivation for their neighbours and are paid for that. The smaller holders do their own harvesting, but the heavy work—the ploughing, harrowing, etc.—is done by the men who live in the farm house. It is a co-operative system which answers very well. We put no buildings up at all.
  LORD SALTOUN: I understand the noble Earl to say that two tenants and their families are content to live in one farm house, and to cultivate sixty acres of land. I cannot understand that. I am certain that under no condition would a farmer in the north consent to live in such a way. As far as I can gather from the noble Lord, the tenants on the other small holdings have to live anywhere.
  EARL CARRINGTON: They live in the village.
  LORD SALTOUN: Then they may have miles to travel to till their ground. That surely is not a satisfactory arrangement. Buildings must be erected on the land or the tenants will cry out for them, and they will have to be provided. That is the chief consideration in this matter, and I am glad to have had the opportunity of bringing out that point.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think this discussion has been most satisfactory in one respect—namely, in that it has elicited from a number of Members of this House a unanimous expression of opinion in favour of the desirability of extending the system of small holdings so far as this
  596
  can be done with the prospect of practical success. Nothing could be further from the truth than the idea that difficulties have been created in the way of the establishment of such holdings by the class of landowners to which your Lordships belong.
  A useful note of warning has, however, been struck by several noble Lords who have addressed us. This transition, if it is to take place, is not one which can be allowed to take place abruptly or precipitately. My noble friend at the Table was quite correct when he dwelt upon certain conditions in the absence of some or all of which experiments of this kind are predestined to failure. You must have suitable soil, you must have abundance of roads, you must have easy access to markets, and, last of all, you must have cultivators who are in themselves and in virtue of their experience and knowledge suited to undertake successfully the cultivation of a small piece of land. The idea of transplanting wholesale a number of people from our towns—people who have been employed in urban occupations, as workmen or owners of small shops—and dumping them down upon unoccupied stiff land in different parts of the country, and expecting that they will succeed as small farmers, is a pure and simple chimera.
  It is true that the legal expenses of converting a large farm into small ones, so long as you are not transferring the land, but merely letting to tenants, is not a formidable obstacle; but there are other obstacles which are formidable. If you have to cut up one very large farm into a number of small ones you have to adapt the old premises, such as they are, for use by two or three smaller occupiers, and you have to erect new buildings and farmsteads for the remainder of the land that has to be dealt with. That is a very formidable item of expenditure. I am afraid I could point to one case in my own knowledge where an experiment of this kind was tried under the most favourable conditions and with the assistance of the Small Holdings Association which was so generously promoted by the late Lord Wantage, but where it met with very disappointing results. I expect the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries has heard of the case to which I refer.

  597
  What is always liable to happen in an ordinary case of this kind where the experiment is not conducted, as it was in this case, by an Association, but by the landowner himself, is this—the owner is liable to have his land handed back to him with a number of wholly inappropriate and useless buildings upon it, and very likely in an extremely foul and neglected condition. All these are considerations which cannot be wholly neglected.
  One word with regard to what has been said as to the manner in which the Commissioners of Woods and Forests have dealt with this subject. I suspect that the Commissioners have been instructed to administer the Crown estates upon the most economical principles, and in such a manner as to produce the largest revenue that could be obtained from them; and I doubt very much if they would be very grateful were they told that it was expected they should be the first to make upon the Crown states that experimentum in corpore—I will not say vili—which has been suggested by some of your Lordships. I would go further and say that not only the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, but all those public bodies who have to administer land, not for themselves, but in the interests of different sections of the community, should look very carefully ahead before they commit themselves to indiscriminate experiments of this kind. Where the experiment can be tried carefully under conditions likely to produce success, by all means let it be tried; but I think we should put aside as unworthy of encouragement any idea of a wholesale and indiscriminate attempt to introduce these small holdings regardless of the local conditions which may be present in different parts of the country.

  BLACK ROD'S AUTHORITY.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, your Lordships will recollect that last year there was a Report of the House of Lords Offices Committee in which it was recommended to your Lordships, and the recommendation was adopted by the House, that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the power and authority of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. Accordingly I have placed on the Notice Paper for tonight a Motion for a Select Committee,
  598
  with the names of noble Lords who are willing to serve upon it, I would add that my noble friend Lord Camperdown has taken very great interest in this matter from the commencement, and I shall propose on a future day to add his name to the Committee.
  Moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the power and authority which the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod exercises, and has in past times exercised, with reference to the appointment and control of the door-keepers and messengers of this House, and the origin thereof; and whether it is legally competent for this House to transfer such appointment and control to any other person."—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Moved, That the following Lords be named of the Committee:

  L. Chancellor.

  E. Cawdor.

  D. Norfolk.

  E. Halsbury.

  E. Liverpool. (L. Steward.)

  V. Knutsford.

  L. Robertson.

  E. Onslow.

  —(The Earl of Onslow.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  The Committee to appoint their own Chairman.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.